DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I: Figures 1-3 in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant noted that claims 8, 9, and 15-24 are withdrawn and that claims 1 and 13 are generic. The examiner agrees that claims 15-24 are drawn to the non-elected Species II, however, claims 8 and 9 are readable on the elected species and should not be withdrawn. In regards to claims 1 and 13 being generic, the examiner disagrees. Claim 1 is not generic because it recites that the crash element mounting is configured as a linear guide, which is a feature of elected Species I and not of non-elected Species II. The examiner agrees that claim 13 is generic to both species since the crash element is displaced for blocking between the detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement and the positionally fixed support 25 in both species.
The examination of claims 1-14, 25, and 26 is set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner would like to note that copies of the foreign references and Non-Patent Literature listed on the IDS filed February 3, 2025 were provided in the parent applications.
Foreign reference WO 2012119580 listed on the IDS filed February 3, 2025 has not been considered because a copy was not provided and the reference is not relevant to the current application since the reference does not disclose a device actuated under crash circumstances.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character “17” in Figure 1 does not include an associated indicator line, and reference character “26” in Figure 4 does not include an associated indicator line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the element coupled to the crash element to cause blocking in the crash position, as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, 25, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 1, the phrase “wherein a lock latch” should be changed to “the motor vehicle lock comprising: a lock latch,” in line 2, the phrase “are provided” should be removed, in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “can be brought into an open position” should be changed to “is configured to be brought into an open position,” in lines 3 and 4, the phrase “wherein the lock latch in the closed position is in or can be brought into engagement with a striker or the like” should be changed to “wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is configured to be brought into engagement with a striker,” in line 4, the phrase “can be brought” should be changed to “is configured to be brought,” in line 5, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “into an engaged position,” in line 6, the phrase “can be lifted” should be changed to “is configured to be lifted” and a comma should be inserted after the phrase “a release position,” in line 7, the phrase “to the open position” should be inserted after the phrase “releases the lock latch,” in line 8, the phrase “can be brought” should be changed to “is configured to be brought,” and lines 10-17 should read as follows: “wherein a crash element is provided in the motor vehicle lock, in order to avoid a crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl to the release position with a component of the motor vehicle door arrangement, the crash element is displaceable by a crash-induced deformation of said component into a crash position, such that the crash element blocks the detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement, wherein a crash element mounting is provided in the motor vehicle lock, said crash element mounting being configured as a linear guide in which the crash element is displaceably guided.”
In regards to claim 2, line 2, the word “furthermore” should be removed because it is not needed.
In regards to claim 4, line 2, the phrase “the engagement” should be changed to “engagement,” and in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the motor vehicle door, which component has” should be changed to “the motor vehicle door arrangement that has.”
In regards to claim 5, line 2, the phrase “by a spring arrangement” should be inserted after the word “prestressed.”
In regards to claim 6, line 2, the word “furthermore” should be removed because it is not needed.
In regards to claim 8, the claim should read as follows after the preamble “wherein the actuating arrangement has a pivotable outer actuating lever, wherein an actuation of the outer actuating lever in an actuation direction brings about lifting of the detent pawl, and wherein the crash element, when in the crash position, blocks the actuation of the outer actuating lever in the actuating direction.”
In regards to claim 9, line 2, the word “adjustment” should be changed to “displacement” and the word “adjusted” should be changed to “displaced,” in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “and actuating arrangement and a positionally fixed support” should be changed to “and the actuating arrangement, and a positionally fixed support,” in line 3, the phrase “the force flux” should be changed to “a force flux” and in line 4, the phrase “the blocking force” should be changed to “a blocking force” and the phase “the support” should be changed to “the positionally fixed support.”
In regards to claim 10, line 2, the phrase “the support” should be changed to “the positionally fixed support.”
In regards to claim 11, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein an actuating lever of the actuating arrangement is configured to pivot about an actuating lever axis, and wherein a geometrical bearing axis of the crash element mounting is positioned in relation to the actuating lever axis.”
In regards to claim 12, line 2, the word “adjustment” should be changed to “displacement,” and in line 3, the phrase “the crash accelerations” should be changed to “crash accelerations.”
In regards to claim 13, the claim should read as follows: “A motor vehicle lock for a motor vehicle door arrangement, the motor vehicle lock comprising a lock latch and a detent pawl assigned to the lock latch, wherein the lock latch is configured to be brought into an open position and into a closed position, wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is configured to be brought into engagement with a striker, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into an engaged position, in which said detent pawl fixes the lock latch in the closed position, and wherein the detent pawl is configured to be lifted into a release position, in which said detent pawl releases the lock latch to the open position, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into the release position by means of an actuating arrangement, wherein a crash element is provided in the motor vehicle lock, in order to avoid a crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl to the release position with a component of the motor vehicle door arrangement, the crash element is displaceable by a crash-induced deformation of said component into a crash position, such that the crash element blocks the detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement, wherein a crash element mounting is provided in the motor vehicle lock for the crash element, such that the crash element, during displacement of the crash element into the crash position, is displaced between the detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement and a positionally fixed support, such that at least some of a force flux of a blocking force is capable of running via the positionally fixed support and outside of the crash element mounting.”
In regards to claim 14, line 1, the phrase “the support” should be changed to “the positionally fixed support.”
In regards to claim 25, the claim should read as follows: “A motor vehicle door of the motor vehicle door arrangement comprising the motor vehicle lock according to claim 13.”
In regards to claim 26, the claim should read as follows: “The motor vehicle door according to claim 25, wherein the motor vehicle door has a door outer skin, and wherein the crash element is arranged with an engagement section in the direct vicinity of the door outer skin.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, lines 1 and 2 of each claim, it is unclear if the lock latch and detent pawl are part of the motor vehicle lock or are part of the motor vehicle door arrangement. If they are part of the motor vehicle lock, then they are positively recited in the claim, however, if they are part of the “motor vehicle door arrangement” then it is unclear if they are positively recited since the claim recites that the motor vehicle lock is “for a motor vehicle door arrangement.” Based on the specification, the claim will be examined as reciting that the lock latch and detent pawl are part of the motor vehicle lock. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, the claim includes multiple recitations of the phrase “can be,” which contradicts positive recitations within the claim, and therefore, causes the metes and bounds of the claim to be unclear. For example, the claim recites that the detent pawl “can be” brought into the release position, which is not a positive recitation of the movement of the detent pawl into its release position, and the claim also recites positively that the crash element is displaceable so as to block the detent pawl or inherently block the movement of the detent pawl, per the specification. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not the detent pawl actually is moved to its release position. The examiner has suggested language in the claim objections above, replacing most of the “can be” language with “is configured to” which more positively recites the various features in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, line 4 of each claim, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, line 7 of each claim, the relationship between the releasing of the latch lock by the detent pawl, and the positions of the latch lock recited in line 3 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the detent pawl releases the lock latch to its open position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, line 10 of each claim, it is unclear if the crash element is part of the motor vehicle lock or is part of the motor vehicle door arrangement, i.e. the crash element is “provided” on/in/to what? See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 1 and 13, lines 10 and 11 of each claim, the relationship between the crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl, and the positions of the detent pawl recited in lines 5-7 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl causes the detent pawl to move to the release position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
Claims 1 and 13 recites the limitation "the crash-induced deformation" in line 12 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, lines 14 and 15, it is unclear how the crash element “decouples the actuating arrangement from the detent pawl.” Specifically, based on Figures 1 and 2 and the specification, it is understood that the crash element or an element coupled to it, is moved into a position to block movement of the actuating lever 6. The crash element does not disconnect or break the mechanical connection between the actuating arrangement, which includes the actuating lever, and the detent pawl, it only blocks movement of the actuating lever. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined as supported by the specification. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, line 17, the relationship between the crash element being “displaceable,” as suggested by the phrase “displaceably guided,” and the “adjustment” of the crash element, as recited in lines 11 and 12, is unclear from the claim language. Based on the specification, it is assumed that the displacement and adjustment of the crash element are equivalent, and will be examined as such. The claim should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2, line 2, it is unclear how the crash element mounting is fitted onto the motor vehicle lock, when the claims are drawn to the motor vehicle lock (see the preambles), which includes multiple components. The phrase “fitted onto the motor vehicle lock” suggests that the term “motor vehicle lock” refers to a single structure into which the crash element mounting is fitted, which is not supported by the claim language.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the engagement” and "the motor vehicle door" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is assumed that the “motor vehicle door” of claim 4 is equivalent to the “motor vehicle door arrangement” of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 4, line 3, the relationship between the “crash-induced deformation” of claim 4 and the crash-induced deformation of claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. Based on the specification, it is assumed that the crash-induced deformation of claim 4 is equivalent to the crash-induced deformation of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spring arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See objection to claim 5 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the actuating" in line 2 and the limitation “the actuating direction” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, lines 2 and 3, the relationship between the lifting of the detent pawl recited in claim 8 and the lifting of the detent pawl, as recited in claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the lifting of the detent pawl in claim 8 is equivalent to the lifting of the detent pawl of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, lines 3 and 4, it is unclear what feature of the actuating lever in the actuating direction is blocked by the crash element, i.e. “blocks” what of “the actuating lever in the actuating direction.” It is understood from the specification that the crash element, when in the crash position, blocks pivoting of the actuating lever in the actuating direction, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 9, lines 2 and 3, it is unclear if the crash element is displaced between all three of the detent pawl, the actuating arrangement, and the positionally fixed support, based on the phrase “the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement and a positionally fixed support,” or that the crash element is displaced between the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement, and that a comma should be inserted after the phrase “actuating arrangement” in line 3. The claim will be examined as reciting that the crash element is displaced between the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the force flux" and “the blocking force” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 10 and 14, it is unclear how the positionally fixed support is arranged immovably on the motor vehicle lock, when the claims are drawn to the motor vehicle lock (see the preambles), which includes multiple components. The phrase “arranged immovably on the motor vehicle lock” suggests that the term “motor vehicle lock” refers to a single structure on which the positionally fixed support is arranged, which is not supported by the claim language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the actuating lever" in line 1 and the limitation “the geometrical bearing axis” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the crash accelerations" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 13, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “adjustment” and “adjusted” in the claim is used by the claim to mean “moved” or “displaced,” while the accepted meaning is “settle, resolve.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the crash element is displaced. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 13, the relationship between the “component to be blocked by the crash element,” as recited in lines 16 and 17, and the “detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement” to be blocked by the crash element, as recited in lines 13 and 14, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the component of lines 16 and 17 must be referring to the detent pawl and/or the actuating arrangement of lines 13 and 14, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 25, it is unclear what applicant intends to claim. Specifically, it is unclear if applicant is intending to claim a motor vehicle door arrangement or a motor vehicle door, and how the motor vehicle door arrangement is related to the one in claim 13. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claims 3, 5, 7, 14, and 26, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-14, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US-7478848) in view of Spitzley (US-6042159).
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses a motor vehicle lock (the handle device, as shown in Figure 3, and the inherent vehicle door locking device connected to handle device that locks and unlocks the door as is known in the art, as a unit, Col. 4, lines 7, 8, and 15-18) for a motor vehicle door arrangement, the locking device of the motor vehicle lock being brought into a released state by means of an actuating arrangement (the handle or grip attached to the base 10 and lever 20, as a unit), wherein a crash element 42 is provided in the motor vehicle lock, said crash element, in order to avoid a crash-induced releasing of the locking device with a component (at least one of the deformed components, Col. 4, lines 9-14) of the motor vehicle door arrangement, is displaceable by a crash-induced deformation of said component into a crash position (position in which portion 42a engages slot 21a, Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 32), such that the crash element, when in the crash position, blocks the actuating arrangement (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 32), wherein a crash element mounting 41 is provided, said crash element mounting being configured as a linear guide and in which the crash element is displaceably guided (as shown in Figure 5 below, the sides of the mounting are linear and provide a guide for the linear movement of portion 42a into slot 21a).
Kim fails to specify that the locking device of the motor vehicle lock includes a lock latch and detent pawl, with the lock latch configured to be brought into an open position and into a closed position, wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is in engagement with a striker, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into an engaged position, in which said detent pawl fixes the lock latch in the closed position, and wherein the detent pawl is configured to be lifted into a release position, in which said detent pawl releases the lock latch to the open position, with the detent pawl being configured to be brought into the release position by the means of the actuating arrangement, and the detent pawl being configured to lift to the release position during a crash by a lifting of the handle device during the crash. Spitzley et al. teaches a motor vehicle lock 10, 43 (as a unit) for a motor vehicle door arrangement 26, the motor vehicle lock comprising a lock latch 48 and a detent pawl 52, wherein the lock latch is configured to be brought into an open position and into a closed position (Col. 4, lines 4-16), wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is in engagement with a striker 50, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into an engaged position, in which said detent pawl fixes the lock latch in the closed position (Col. 4, lines 4-16), wherein the detent pawl is configured to be lifted to a release position (lifted by the handle device using connecting link 54, Col. 4, lines 4-16), in which said detent pawl releases the lock latch to the open position, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into the release position by means of an actuating arrangement 32, 54, and the detent pawl is configured such that a crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl to the release position can occur by a lifting of a handle or grip 30a of the handle device (Col. 4, lines 4-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the locking device of Kim includes the known structure of a lock latch and detent pawl, with the actuating arrangement of Kim being connected to the detent pawl such that in the event of a crash, the movement of the handle or grip can cause a lifting of the detent pawl, but that this lifting can be prevented by preventing the movement of the handle or grip, as disclosed by Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Kim discloses that the crash element mounting is fitted to a portion 11 of the motor vehicle lock.
In regards to claim 3, Kim discloses that the crash element has a guide section 42a which is in guiding engagement with the crash element mounting (Figure 5).
In regards to claim 4, Kim discloses that the crash element has an engagement section 42b for engagement with the component of the motor vehicle door arrangement that has undergone the crash-induced deformation (Col. 4, lines 9-14).
In regards to claim 5, Kim discloses that the crash element is prestressed by a spring arrangement 43 (when considering the embodiment in Figure 8).
In regards to claim 6, Kim discloses that the crash element has a support section (portion with pins 42c, Figure 8) which supports the spring arrangement in relation to a portion 11 of the motor vehicle lock (Figure 8).
In regards to claim 7, Kim discloses that the crash element is clipped into the crash element mounting (clipped, snapped, or elastically fitted into holes 41c, Col. 4, lines 47-52).
In regards to claim 8, Kim in view of Spitzley et al. teaches that the actuating arrangement has a pivotable outer actuating lever 20 (Kim), an actuation of the actuating lever in an actuation direction brings about the lifting of the detent pawl to the release position, and the crash element, when in the crash position, blocks pivoting of the actuating lever in the actuating direction (blocks by engagement with slot 21a of the actuating lever, as disclosed by Kim).
In regards to claim 9, Kim in view of Spitzley et al. teaches that the crash element, during the displacement thereof into the crash position, is displaced between the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement (apparent from Figure 3 of Kim and Figure 8 of Spitzley et al. that the crash element is located between the locking device having the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement or lever 20) and a positionally fixed support 11 such that at least some of a force flux of a blocking force blocking the detent pawl and the actuating arrangement (blocking the detent pawl via the blocking of the actuating arrangement) can run via the positionally fixed support and outside of the crash element mounting (since the crash element mounting is fixed to the support 11, the force flux from the blocking force, which is a direct result of the force on portion 42b of the crash element, is capable of running via the support to outside or exterior to the crash element mounting).
In regards to claims 10 and 14, Kim discloses that the positionally fixed support is arranged immovably on the locking device of the motor vehicle lock (immovably on the door, on which the locking device is immovably arranged, therefore, the support is immovably arranged on the locking device portion via the door).
In regards to claim 11, Kim discloses that an actuating lever 20 of the actuating arrangement is configured to pivot about an actuating lever axis (axis through the length of pin 21, Figure 3), and a geometrical bearing axis (axis through pins 42c, Figure 8) of the crash element mounting is positioned in relation to the actuating lever axis (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 12, Kim discloses that the crash element, during a crash-induced displacement into the crash position, is destroyed in such a manner that the blocking of the detent pawl and of the actuating arrangement is ceased after crash accelerations have occurred (at least the embodiment in Figure 3 is capable of being destroyed or broken under a large enough force, Col. 5, lines 7-10).
In regards to claim 13, Kim discloses a motor vehicle lock (the handle device, as shown in Figure 3, and the inherent vehicle door locking device connected to handle device that locks and unlocks the door as is known in the art, as a unit, Col. 4, lines 7, 8, and 15-18) for a motor vehicle door arrangement, the locking device of the motor vehicle lock being brought into a released state by means of an actuating arrangement (the handle or grip attached to the base 10 and lever 20, as a unit), wherein a crash element 42 is provided in the motor vehicle lock, in order to avoid a crash-induced releasing of the locking device with a component of the motor vehicle door arrangement (at least one of the deformed components, Col. 4, lines 9-14), the crash element is displaceable by a crash-induced deformation of said component into a crash position (position in which portion 42a engages slot 21a, Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 32), such that the crash element blocks the actuating arrangement (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 32), wherein a crash element mounting 41 is provided in the motor vehicle lock for the crash element, such that the crash element, during displacement of the crash element into the crash position, is displaced between the actuating arrangement and a positionally fixed support (displaced between a bottom portion of segment 21 of the actuating arrangement located at the indicator line for reference character 21 in Figure 5 and a positionally fixed support or top portion of component 11 shown in Figure 5 on Page 18 of the current Office Action), such that at least some of a force flux of a blocking force is capable of running via the positionally fixed support and outside of the crash element mounting (since the crash element mounting is fixed to the positionally fixed support, the force flux from the blocking force, which is a direct result of the force on portion 42b of the crash element, is capable of running via the support to outside or exterior to the crash element mounting).
Kim fails to specify that the locking device of the motor vehicle lock includes a lock latch and detent pawl, with the lock latch configured to be brought into an open position and into a closed position, wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is in engagement with a striker, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into an engaged position, in which said detent pawl fixes the lock latch in the closed position, and wherein the detent pawl is configured to be lifted into a release position, in which said detent pawl releases the lock latch to the open position, with the detent pawl being configured to be brought into the release position by the means of the actuating arrangement, and the detent pawl being configured to lift to the release position during a crash by a lifting of the handle device during the crash. Spitzley et al. teaches a motor vehicle lock 10, 43 (as a unit) for a motor vehicle door arrangement 26, the motor vehicle lock comprising a lock latch 48 and a detent pawl 52, wherein the lock latch is configured to be brought into an open position and into a closed position (Col. 4, lines 4-16), wherein the lock latch, when in the closed position, is in engagement with a striker 50, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into an engaged position, in which said detent pawl fixes the lock latch in the closed position (Col. 4, lines 4-16), wherein the detent pawl is configured to be lifted to a release position (lifted by the handle device using connecting link 54, Col. 4, lines 4-16), in which said detent pawl releases the lock latch to the open position, wherein the detent pawl is configured to be brought into the release position by means of an actuating arrangement 32, 54, and the detent pawl is configured such that a crash-induced lifting of the detent pawl to the release position can occur by a lifting of a handle or grip 30a of the handle device (Col. 4, lines 4-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the locking device of Kim includes the known structure of a lock latch and detent pawl, with the actuating arrangement of Kim being connected to the detent pawl such that in the event of a crash, the movement of the handle or grip can cause a lifting of the detent pawl, but that this lifting can be prevented by preventing the movement of the handle or grip, as disclosed by Kim.
In regards to claim 25, Kim discloses a motor vehicle door of the motor vehicle door arrangement comprising the motor vehicle lock according to claim 13 (vehicle door, Col. 3, lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 26, Kim discloses that the motor vehicle door has a door outer skin (door panel, Col. 3, lines 60-63), and wherein the crash element is arranged with an engagement section 42b in the direct vicinity of the door outer skin (in direct vicinity of the door outer skin such that the impact on the door outer skin is directly applied to the engagement section, Col. 4, lines 59-65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 12, 2026